Between 2006 and 2020, the world is expected to reach a peak in oil production where world demand for oil resources will be greater than the world's available oil supplies. Learn about oil and natural gas depletion and what that means for the global economy and our way of life in the United States.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

The Hypocrisy and Illegality of the Nuclear Deal Between India and the U.S.

For the past 30 years, the U.S. has led the way in denying India access to nuclear technology because India tested and developed nuclear weapons outside of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India refused to sign the deal because it opposed the discriminatory nature of the treaty that allows the 5 declared nuclear countries of the world to keep their nuclear arsenal and develop their arsenal using computer simulation testing. In response to India performing nuclear tests in 1998 and in an effort to get India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, President Clinton imposed sanctions against India and the U.S. stalled international loans from the World Bank that were meant to fund a renewable energy program and development of a national electricity grid in India.

Now, President Bush, is saying forget all of that stuff we did to India in the past when we were trying to prevent them from becoming a Nuclear Power, India is now our ally and “times change.”

The following reasons are why I have a problem with this new deal with India – our new ally.

1.) President Bush is selling this deal with India to the public, as a way to ease the effect of increasing oil prices on US consumers. I personally think President Bush and his administration recognize the intricate details and consequences of Peak Oil. I think President Bush is sacrificing the reputation of the U.S. and engaging in dangerous foreign policy tactics in an effort to buy more time for the U.S. to come up with this “magic” technology that will allow Americans to continue to guzzle oil, remain wasteful, and keep their standard of livings. The equation of the U.S., India, and China increasing their oil demand each year and all competing for the remaining scraps of oil left on the planet is obviously not going to work (i.e. 2+2+2 will never equal 5). Instead of reducing the U.S. demand on oil, which will inevitably slow our economy, I believe the Bush Administration is betting that they can work to curb the oil consumption of other countries and reduce their demand on the remaining oil resources. The problem with this "bet" is that experts say that this deal meets only 10 to 12 percent of India’s mammoth energy needs. Therefore, the U.S. is engaging in dangerous and extremely hypocritical foreign policy that doesn’t really solve the problem of the world having a greater demand for fossil fuel energy than what is actually available. Which begs the question…is this deal smart foreign policy? In addition, I also think Bush wants India in his pocket, so he can call on them in future, similar to what happened when Bush was garnering support against Iran.

2) It is a complete double standard for the United States to attempt to hold other countries, who have actually signed the NPT to a different standard than countries who haven’t even signed the treaty. India gets nuclear cooperation from the U.S., while other countries such as Pakistan and Iran are unilaterally deemed ineligible for such cooperation.

3) The U.S. is a signatory to the NPT, but the deal between the U.S. and India violates tenets of the NPT, because based on the treaty, a non-signatory state is not eligible for cooperation support from other countries that are non NPT members even in the form of non-military assistance.

4) This foreign policy move by Bush and Rice, appears to reward bad behavior and sends a bad message to other international countries who have not signed the NPT that it’s ok to develop nuclear weapons outside the NPT, which is the exact opposite of a goal of non-proliferation.

5) The U.S. is currently calling for Iran to abandon its nuclear program and alluding to sanctions and possible military action if Iran doesn’t comply. Iran has complied with the terms of the NPT and allowed more inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) than any other country that is a signatory of the NPT and has agreed to additional Protocols required by the IAEA, that are not required by other NPT signatories. In addition, Iran already suspended its nuclear program voluntarily in order to continue EU nogotiations and "build trust" in the international community. The U.S. has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons with little evidence, similar to the situation of the U.S accusing Iraq of having weapons of mass destructions with little/false evidence. The U.S. argues that Iran can’t have weapons because it’s not a true democracy, it doesn’t have any need for nuclear power because it’s rich in oil, and a nuclear Iran would cause a regional nuclear arms race. None of these “qualifications” stated by the U.S. are noted anywhere in the NPT. The NPT gives Iran the right to develop peaceful nuclear technology and actually requires nuclear superpowers like the U.S. to share nuclear technology to further these efforts.

6) The U.S. has watched while Israel has secretly developed nuclear weapons and not referred them to any Security Council, nor had any qualms about Israel spurring a nuclear arms race in the region. Israel is not a signatory of the NPT.

7) The deal with India violates U.S. law, because any signed international treaty such as the NPT automatically becomes U.S. law and in addition, U.S. law currently prohibits sharing of nuclear technologies and materials outside the framework of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a multinational body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation, by controlling the export and re-transfer of nuclear materials. India is not a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The Nuclear Suppliers Group was actually founded in 1976 in response to a Indian nuclear weapons test in 1975. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons. Nations already signatories of the NPT saw the need to further limit the export of nuclear equipment, materials or technology. It’s more than ironic that this deal with India will violate a U.S. law that requires adherence to rules of an organization that was founded in response to India developing weapons outside of the NPT.

8) The deal with India only requires that India make 14 out of its 22 nuclear facilities open to inspections by the IAEA. The remaining 8 are military facilities and not subject to inspection or monitoring. India has not agreed to scale back it's nuclear program and plans to continue it. India's reprocessing and enrichment of uranium — key steps in making weapons-grade material — will not be subject to international safeguards.

The hypocrisy of India (who wants civilian nuclear energy) agreeing to refer Iran (who also wants civilian nuclear energy) to the Security Council in effort to secure a deal with the United States has not gone unnoticed. The hypocrisy of the U.S. ignoring the NPT when it comes to their “allies”, but demanding sanctions be brought against countries adhering to the NPT, such as Iran, has not gone unnoticed. The hypocrisy of the United States now putting all of this faith in the inspections of IAEA with regards to India and Iran but completely ignoring Mohamed ElBaradei, Director of the IAEA, with regards to his view that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, has not gone unnoticed. Days before the Iraq war started, Vice Presdient Dick Cheney officially said “We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

7 Comments:

Anonymous said...

What hypocrisy. How dare you compared India with Iran, Pakistan and Isreal. Had we ever envolved in the poliferation. World knew they can't stop us anymore as our indigenous program is already capable of running with no external help. All this is to create a new market for Nuclear Supplier Group.

I think that India is technically guilty of profileration as they developed weapons outside of the NPT in the first place. If the goal of non-proliferation, is no additional nuclear weapons, India ignored that goal in the beginning because it suited their national interests. I don't think it's fair for them to engage in proliferation and develop nuclear weapons, and then when they stop developing them and haven't developed them in years, for you to say look! we haven't engaged in proliferation!

And now India can be the poster child for any country, regardless of whether they are considered "enemy" or "ally" developing nuclear weapons outside of the NPT. That situation would be another example of proliferation because of India. The United States swaps the descriptions of "enemy" and "ally" frequently and as they see fit, based on what suits our national interests. India may gain short-term economic benefits and global clout with regards to this deal, but I think they're in for a rude awakening if they expect loyalty from the United States in the long term. We will screw them if necessary. That's the real basis of our foreign policy.

I tried not to get into a "this country is better than that country" debate in my post (which is ironic, since my harshest critique is of my own country), so I won't respond to your comments that I compared India with Iran, Pakistan, and Israel. I'm sorry if you find discussing those four countries in a post discussing nuclear technology, offensive.

Outside the NPT-- means the NPT does not apply to India and thus it cannot be subject to its laws. Yes Indian interests and American interests are convergent.. thats why it is imperative for them to cooperate. If the American leftists or the Indian communists or Muslims dont like this, they are free to migrate to countries that suit their mindset. Pakistan has proliferated nukes to Iran and NK. Iran or rather its tinpot dictator has publicly vowed to work towards "wiping israel of the map". To compare these two to India is sacrilegious (sp?) worse than when the Muslims accused Americans of 'desecrating' their bloody koran-- nothing but a hate manual. Do your research on Islamism and Jihad before you open your mouth and compare Hindu India to cultures of barbarity..Hinduzionkafir

People from America think America is the best. People from India thinks India is the best. People from Israel think Israel is the best. People from Iran think Iran is the best. It’s call nationalism and it’s not an objective way to decide who should and should not have nuclear weapons and engage in nuclear proliferation. It’s not fair, nor is it good policy to arbitrarily say this country can have nuclear weapons because their “good” and “responsible” and this country can’t because they’re “bad” and “irresponsible.” If the world followed that logic, then the United States shouldn’t have any nuclear weapons at all!

One of the purposes of having rules is so that one country (i.e. The U.S.) can't unilaterally decide which countries can go nuclear. One of the purposes of having rules in the first place and an international treaty, is to have some objective way of evaluating existing nuclear weapons and potential additional nuclear weapons in the international arena. I don’t think India was necessarily wrong to not sign the NPT after being bullied by the U.S. about the issue for so long. I actually think it was a smart decision on their part. I think they definitely got the better end of the recent deal with the U.S, although I think they are opening the door to the U.S. trying to control their affairs in the future.

My main critique was the fact that Bush agreed to such a deal in the first place and the ramifications it has for countries we’ve been bullying who have actually signed the NPT and how hypocritical it is given other arguments we've made against other countries who we've unilaterally deemed unworthy of nuclear cooperation, regardless of what the NPT says.

If the United States doesn’t follow the NPT, bullies countries who have followed the NPT, and makes landmark deals with countries who have not followed the NPT, then the NPT basically means nothing. Making the NPT irrelevant, is a bad foreign policy move on our part, in a world fearful of proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

Referral of Iran’s nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council has diverted world public opinion from fully grasping the ramifications of the nuclear deal between the US and India. Put simply, the deal is bad for the non-proliferation regime, harmful to the region and disastrous for global security, impartial experts and activists maintain.Awarded to India for shoving aside its traditional friendship with Iran and selling out its independent foreign policy, the deal is in clear violation of the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. These provisions prohibit the transfer of nuclear technology, fuel and material to a country that has conducted nuclear tests, possesses nukes and refused to sign the NPT.Indians will open up 14 civilian reactors to inspections while keeping their fast-breeder and research reactors, reprocessing facilities and spent fuel stockpile out of bounds. The division of civilian and military nuclear programs looks good on paper, but in reality is nothing more than a Trojan horse. This was evident in 1974 when India detonated a nuclear device by using the plutonium from the Cirus reactor, whose civilian program was supplied with heavy water by the US.Pakistan was kicked aside in favor of India for what the neocons in Washington claimed is its non-proliferation credentials. However, the US-based think tank Institute for Science and International Security blasted this claim by revealing that India indulged in illicit nuclear procurements from European and other sources. In any case, the deal is expected to face stiff opposition when it comes up for endorsement in the US Congress and the Suppliers Group. But even if the neoconservatives do manage to overcome these oppositions, it will sound the death-knell of NPT.Apart from setting a bad example of how a country can expand its nuclear weapons arsenal outside the NPT, the deal will also encourage other nuclear powers to cut similar deals with willing countries. Unfortunately, the person responsible for safeguarding NPT, namely IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei, has expressed his readiness to help bury this treaty by approving the questionable deal.The deal is also marked by US President George W. Bush’s growing arrogance and hypocrisy. On the one hand, he openly flouts international laws in the Indian deal, but on the other expects the world to sanction an NPT signatory like Iran, which has allowed regular IAEA inspections of all its facilities and is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.While the Americans bribe the Indians with the nuclear carrot, they hit the Chinese with the human rights stick to push their global agenda.In fact, Bush wants to defreeze his approval ratings at home and sign lucrative arms and trade deals with India. But in doing so, he upset his so-called “strategic ties“ with Pakistan by rejecting its request for a similar deal outright. So instead of being a stabilizing factor, the US-India alliance will disturb the region’s balance of power and instigate an arms race.It’s a long shot, but the Americans ultimately want the Indian snake to bare its geopolitical fangs to the Chinese dragon in the near future. The Indian government may gloat over the deal, but is the heavy cost worth the benefits? Now even before the deal goes through, its immediate victim appears to be the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan. The simmering regional turbulence and US pressures will seriously jeopardize the project. And with India out of the picture, the pipeline would no longer be feasible.Today, people across the world stand aghast at the spinelessness of many of their leaders, international institutions and civil bodies in standing up to the US arm-twisting and propaganda blitz against dissenters. Unfortunately, there is no competing vision or power to stop the victimization of Iran and the consolidation of this risky alliance between the US and India. Until that emerges, nothing will stop the new world order from descending into greater chaos and instability.

yes and India will help america reach its objectives. Pax americana is not bad for india or its allies and thats all that matters to me. If Islam and communism ceases to exist as a byproduct, thats great.-hinduzionkafir